The first thing to acknowledge is that regime change in Iran is 100% on the agenda, both Israel and the USA want this. The 'debate' real boils down
to whether a military option is going to be used.
What began in the 21st century was an agenda of regime change throughout the region. The conflicts may have been officially based on the 'war on
terror' or intervention on 'humanitarian grounds', but these are falsehoods fed to the public to justify military actions.
Conflict over who controls the resources of the middle east is nothing new, it has been going on for a century or longer, the same plight has seen
African nations suffer incredible hardships because of western efforts to control key resources and minerals.
If we look at a map of the middle east, there are essentially two countries left that are key to control over the region- namely Syria and Iran. So
we either have a huge coincidence that these two countries are being targeted right now, or we accept the reality of the situation-
The map speaks for itself. We reach a point however were the US now has to decide on which policy is best to remove the regime. Israel, the Israeli
lobby in the US and the MSM have been pushing the propaganda for years, but that is just indication that sooner or later, the policy makers will have
to make a decision. Now more than ever, we are getting closer to that decision.
The policy makers will be thinking through the following-
1- Regime change applied to Iran in 1953 or more recently in Libya will not work in modern day Iran, where the regime is deeply entrenched into the
infastructure of the country. The regime in Iran is too strong to be overcome by a revolution.
2- Economic sanctions are ultimately only affecting the people- many reports have indicated the regime itself has grown stronger to make sure it holds
onto power at all costs. Not only that, it still trades with other countries that are ignoring the US imposed sanctions. It is a failed policy that
is hurting the innocent people in Iran, the regime is stronger than ever.
3- Regime change via the Libyan route will not work, sanctions are failing and diplomacy, whether real or not, has failed in the eyes of the decision
4- With these policies removed, we only have the military option.
5- They can't just start bombing the country, Iran has an ally in Russia to begin with. There are many things that could however, justify military
6- Israel, acting alone, may start a bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran will retaliate, this could even go on for months before
the USA has to step in to help Israel finish the job and protect her ally. Obama has said many times he has 'Israel's back.'
7- Problem with point 6 is that Iran and the international community know that Israel is funded by the USA- that could lead to Iran carrying out a
terrorist attack against America or one of her allies as they would see an Israeli attack as being 'green lighted' by the USA.
8- Point 7 would still suit the policy makers, because as we know, a terrorist attack is very useful to justify a war.
9- If the USA agrees to help Israel in a military option, it might be a joint effort. This however would require justification. We could even see an
argument were lack of action has led to Iran getting the bomb and using it- this would be the worst justifaction but hopefully this kind of false flag
is never applied. I have no doubt they have considered it though.
10- There could be a smaller false flag, the Syrian regime is being hammered daily, so a terrorist attack by Iran could come in response to what is
happening in Syria. We've already seen the Israeli air force stop terrorists entering Israel and accusing them of being funded by Iran.
The point is-
- Regime change is what they want
- Current policy of diplomacy, sanctions have failed
- Israel is becoming more vocal in saying time is running out
- Policy makers in the US, heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby are being rushed into a decision on the military option.
The next few months, in the run up to the elections and beyond are the most intriguing we have seen a long time, because time is running out for Iran,
the agenda in just 12 years has seen regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Syria, a vital transport hub of the region is being ticked off as
Something will happen in the next few months that will justify the military option, it is the only policy option they have left- it's just a matter of
time waiting for the final nail in the coffin to confirm and persuade the public and Obama (or Romney if after the elections) that the military option
has to be used. Could be for 'national security', 'helping Israel', in revenge for a 'terrorist' attack, as one policy paper put it, there are 'many
paths into Persia' but they all require the military option. It's just a matter of which route they take on that path to war.
edit on 17-8-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-8-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason